J. Astrophys. Astr.

(September 2017) 38:43 © Indian Academy of Sciences

DOI 10.1007/s12036-017-9470-9

Review

Superfluidity and Superconductivity in Neutron Stars

N. CHAMEL

Institute of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Université Libre de Bruxelles, CP 226, Boulevard du Triomphe,
1050 Brussels, Belgium.
E-mail: nchamel@ulb.ac.be

MS received 15 April 2017; accepted 14 June 2017; published online 12 September 2017

Abstract. Neutron stars, the compact stellar remnants of core-collapse supernova explosions, are unique
cosmic laboratories for exploring novel phases of matter under extreme conditions. In particular, the occurrence
of superfluidity and superconductivity in neutron stars will be briefly reviewed.

Keywords. Neutron stars—superfluidity—superconductivity—dense matter.

1. Introduction With typical temperatures of order 107 K, the highly

Formed in the furnace of gravitational core-collapse
supernova explosions of stars with a mass between 8 and
10 times that of the Sun (Deshpande et al. 1995), neutron
stars contain matter crushed at densities exceeding that
found inside the heaviest atomic nuclei (for a general
review about neutron stars, see, Srinivasan (1997) and
Haensel et al. (2007)). A proto neutron star is initially
fully fluid with a mass of about one or two solar masses,
a radius of about 50 km and internal temperatures of
the order of 1011 –1012 K (for a review about neutron-
star formation, see Prakash et al. (2001)). About one
minute later, the proto-neutron star becomes transparent
to neutrinos that are copiously produced in its interior,
thus rapidly cools down and shrinks into an ordinary
neutron star. After a few months, the surface of the
star – possibly surrounded by a very thin atmospheric
plasma layer of light elements – still remains liquid.
However, the layers beneath crystallize thus forming
a solid crust (Chamel & Haensel 2008). At this point,
the core is much colder than the crust because of the
cooling power of the escaping neutrinos. After several
decades, the interior of the star reaches a thermal equi-
librium with temperatures of about 108 K (except for
a thin outer heat-blanketing envelope). The last cool-
ing stage takes place after about a hundred thousand
years, when heat from the interior diffuses to the sur-
face and is dissipated in the form of radiation (for a
recent review about neutron-star cooling, see Potekhin
et al. (2015)).
degenerate matter in neutron stars is expected to become
cold enough for the appearance of superfluids and super-
conductors – frictionless quantum liquids respectively
electrically neutral and charged (Leggett 2006) – made
of neutrons and protons, and more speculatively of other
particles such as hyperons or quarks. If these phase tran-
sitions really occur, neutron stars would not only be the
largest superfluid and superconducting systems known
in the Universe (Srinivasan 1997; Chamel & Haensel
2008; Sauls 1989; Sedrakian & Clark 2006; Page et al.
2014; Graber et al. 2017), but also the hottest ones with
critical temperatures of the order of 1010 K as compared
to a mere 203 K for the world record achieved in 2014
in terrestrial laboratories and consisting of hydrogen-
sulphide compound under high pressure (Drozdov et al.
2015).
After describing the main properties of terrestrial
superfluids and superconductors, an overview of the the-
oretical developments in the modelling of superfluid and
superconducting neutron stars will be given. Finally, the
possible observational manifestations of these phases
will be briefly discussed.
2. Terrestrial superfluids and superconductors
2.1 Historical milestones
Superconductivity and superfluidity were known long
before the discovery of pulsars in August 1967. Heike
43 Page 2 of 14
Table 1. Properties of various superfluid and superconducting sys-
tems in order of their critical temperature Tc . Adapted from Table 1.1
in Leggett (2006).
System
Neutron stars
Cuprates and other exotics
Electrons in ordinary metals
Helium-4
Helium-3
Fermi alkali gases
Bose alkali gases
Kamerlingh Onnes and his collaborators were the first
to liquefy helium in 1908, thus allowing them to explore
the properties of materials at lower temperatures than
could be reached before. On 8th April 1911, they
observed that the electric resistance of mercury dropped
to almost zero at temperature Tc  4.2 K (for an his-
torical account of this discovery, see e.g., van Delft &
Kes (2010)). Two years later, lead and tin were found
to be also superconducting. In 1914, Onnes showed
that superconductivity is destroyed if the magnetic field
exceeds some critical value. He later designed an exper-
iment to measure the decay time of a magnetically
induced electric current in a superconducting lead ring,
and did not notice any change after an hour. Super-
conducting currents can actually be sustained for more
than hundred thousand years (File & Mills 1963). Kee-
som & Kok (1932) found that the heat capacity of
tin exhibits a discontinuity as it becomes supercon-
ducting thus demonstrating that this phase transition
is of second order. A year later, Meissner & Ochsen-
feld (1933) made the remarkable observation that when
a superconducting material initially placed in a mag-
netic field is cooled below the critical temperature,
the magnetic flux is expelled from the sample. This
showed that superconductivity represents a new ther-
modynamical equilibrium state of matter. Rjabinin &
Shubnikov (1935a, b) at the Kharkov Institute of Sci-
ence and Technology in Ukraine discovered that some
so-called ‘hard’ or type II superconductors (as opposed
to ‘soft’ or type I superconductors) exhibit two critical
fields, between which the magnetic flux partially pen-
etrates the material. Various superconducting materials
were discovered in the following decades.
During the 1930s, several research groups in Lei-
den, Toronto, Moscow, Oxford and Cambridge (United
Kingdom), found that below Tλ  2.17 K, helium-
4 (referred to as helium II) does not behave like an
ordinary liquid (for a review of the historical context,
J. Astrophys. Astr. (September 2017) 38:43
Density (cm−3 ) Tc (K)
∼1039 ∼1010
∼1021 1–165
∼1023 1–25
∼1022 2.17
∼1022 2.491 × 10−3
∼1012 ∼10−6
∼1015 ∼10−7 –10−5
see Balibar (2007, 2014)). In particular, helium II does
not boil, as was actually first noticed by Kamerlingh
Onnes and his collaborators the same day they dis-
covered superconductivity (van Delft & Kes 2010).
Helium II can flow without resistance through very nar-
row slits and capillaries, almost independently of the
pressure drop. The term ‘superfluid’ was coined by
Pyotr Kapitsa in 1938 by analogy with superconduc-
tors (Kapitsa 1938). Helium II also flows up over the
sides of a beaker and drip off the bottom (for ordinary
liquids, the so-called Rollin film is clamped by viscos-
ity). The existence of persistent currents in helium II
was experimentally established at the end of the 1950s
and the beginning of 1960s (Reppy & Depatie 1964).
The analog of the Meissner–Ochsenfeld phenomenon,
which was predicted by Fritz London, was first observed
by George Hess and William Fairbank at Stanford in
June 1967 (Hess & Fairbank 1967): the angular momen-
tum of helium-4 in a slowly rotating container was found
to be reduced as the liquid was cooled below the critical
temperature Tλ .
At the time the first observed pulsars were identi-
fied as neutron stars, several materials had thus been
found to be superconducting, while helium-4 was the
unique superfluid known. The superfluidity of helium-
3 was established by Osheroff et al. (1972). No other
superfluids were discovered during the next two decades
until the production of ultracold dilute gases of bosonic
atoms in 1995 (Anderson et al. 1995; Davis et al. 1995),
and of fermionic atoms in 2003 (Regal et al. 2004). The
main properties of some known superfluids and super-
conductors are summarized in Table 1.
2.2 Quantum liquids
Superconductivity and superfluidity are among the most
spectacular macroscopic manifestations of quantum
J. Astrophys. Astr. (September 2017) 38:43
mechanics. Satyendra Nath Bose and Albert Einstein
predicted in 1924–1925 that at low enough tempera-
tures an ideal gas of bosons condense into a macroscopic
quantum state (Bose 1924; Einstein 1925). The associ-
ation between Bose–Einstein condensation (BEC) and
superfluidity was first advanced by London (1938). The
only known superfluid at the time was helium-4, which
is a boson. The condensate can behave coherently on
a very large scale and can thus flow without any resis-
tance. It was a key idea for developing the microscopic
theory of superfluidity and superconductivity. Soon
afterwards, Tisza (1938) postulated that a superfluid
such as He II contains two distinct dynamical compo-
nents: the condensate, which carries no entropy, coexists
with a normal viscous fluid. This model explained all
phenomena observed at the time and predicted thermo-
mechanical effects like ‘temperature waves’. Although
Landau (1941) incorrectly believed that superfluidity is
not related to BEC, he developed the two-fluid model
and showed, in particular, that the normal fluid consists
of ‘quasiparticles’, which are not real particles but com-
plex many-body motions. This two-fluid picture was
later adapted to superconductors (Gorter 1955).
According to the microscopic theory of supercon-
ductivity by John Bardeen, Leon Cooper and Robert
Schrieffer (BCS) published in 1957 (Bardeen et al.
1957), the dynamical distortions of the crystal lattice
(phonons) in a solid can induce an attractive effec-
tive interaction between electrons of opposite spins.
Roughly speaking, electrons can thus form pairs and
undergo a BEC below some critical temperature. A
superconductor can thus be viewed as a charged super-
fluid. This picture however should not be taken too far.
Indeed, electron pairs are very loosely bound and over-
lap. Their size ξ ∼ h̄vF /(kB Tc ) (usually referred to as
the coherence length), with vF the Fermi velocity, kB
Boltzmann’s constant, and Tc the critical temperature,
is typically much larger than the lattice spacing. More-
over, electron pairs disappear at temperatures T > Tc .
The BEC and the BCS transition are now understood as
two different limits of the same phenomenon. The pair-
ing mechanism suggested that fermionic atoms could
also become superfluid, as was later confirmed by the
discovery of superfluid helium-3. Since 2003, various
other fermionic superfluids have been found, as men-
tioned in the previous section.
As first discussed by Onsager (1949) and Feynman
(1955), the quantum nature of a superfluid is embedded
in the quantisation of the flow

p · d = N h , (1)
Page 3 of 14 43
where p is the momentum per superfluid particle, h
denotes the Planck’s constant, N is any integer, and
the integral is taken over any closed path. It can be
immediately recognized that this condition is the Bohr–
Sommerfeld quantisation rule. The flow quantisation
follows from the fact that a superfluid is a macroscopic
quantum system whose momentum is thus given by
p = h/λ, where λ is the de Broglie wavelength. Requir-
ing the length of any closed path to be an integral
multiple of the de Broglie wavelength leads to equa-
tion (1). The physical origin of this condition has been
usually obscured by the introduction of the ‘superfluid
velocity’ V s = p/m, where m is the mass of the super-
fluid particles.
In a rotating superfluid, the flow quantisation condi-
tion (1) leads to the appearence of N quantised vortices.
In a region free of vortices, the superflow is character-
ized by the irrotationality condition
∇ × p = 0. (2)
Inside a vortex, the superfluidity is destroyed. Because
superfluid vortices are essentially of quantum nature,
their internal structure cannot be described by a purely
hydrodynamic approach. However, vortices can be
approximately treated as structureless topological
defects at length scales much larger than the vortex core
size. As shown by Tkachenko (1966), quantised vortices
tend to arrange themselves on a regular triangular array,
with a spacing given by

h
dυ = √ , (3)
3m
where  is the angular frequency. Vortex arrays have
been observed in superfluid helium (Yarmchuk et al.
1979) and more recently in atomic Bose–Einstein con-
densates (Abo-Shaeer et al. 2001; Zwierlein et al.
2005). At length scales much larger than the intervor-
tex spacing dυ , the superfluid flow mimics rigid body
rotation such that
∇ × p = mn υ κ , (4)
where n υ is the surface density of vortices given by
m
nυ = , (5)
π h̄
and the vector κ, whose norm is equal to h/m, is aligned
with the average angular velocity. Landau’s original
two-fluid model was further improved in the 1960s by
Hall & Vinen (1956), Hall (1960), and independently
by Bekarevich & Khalatnikov (1961) to account for the
presence of quantised vortices within a coarse-grained
average hydrodynamic description.
43 Page 4 of 14
The quantisation condition (1) also applies to super-
conductors. But in this case, the momentum (in CGS
units) is given by p ≡ m v + (q/c)A A where m,
q, and v are the mass, electric charge and velocity
of superconducting particles respectively, and A is
the electromagnetic potential vector. Introducing the
density n of superconducting particles and the ‘super-
current’ J = nqv, the situation N = 0 as described by
equation (2) leads to London’s equation
c depth, nuclei become progressively more neutron-rich.
∇ ×J = − B, (6)
4π λ2L
where B = ∇ × A is the magnetic field induction, and
λL = mc2 /(4π nq 2 ) is the London penetration depth.
Situations with N > 0 are encountered in type II super-
conductors for which λL  ξ . Considering a closed
contour outside a sample of such a superconductor for
which J = 0 and integrating the momentum p along
this contour, leads to the quantisation of the total mag-
netic flux into fluxoids (also referred to as flux tubes
or fluxons)
 an ocean of unbound neutrons and highly degenerate
= A · d = N 0 , (7)
where 0 = hc/|q| is the flux quantum. The mag-
netic flux quantization, first envisioned by London, was
experimentally confirmed in 1961 by Bascom Deaver
and William Fairbank at Stanford University (Deaver
& Fairbank 1961), and independently Robert Doll and
Martin Näbauer at the Low Temperature Institute in
Hersching (Doll & Näbauer 1961). As predicted by
Abrikosov (1957), these fluxoids tend to arrange them-
selves into a triangular lattice with a spacing given by
 et al. 2013; Horowitz et al. 2015). The composition of
2hc
d = √ . (8)
3|q|B
Averaging at length scales much larger than dυ , the sur-
face density of fluxoids is given by
B |q|B
n = = , (9)
0 hc
where B denotes the average magnetic field strength.
The size of a fluxoid (within which the superconductiv-
ity is destroyed) is of the order of the coherence length
ξ . The magnetic field carried by a fluxoid extends over
a larger distance of the order of the London penetration
length λL . The nucleation of a single fluxoid thus occurs
at a critical field Hc1 ∼ 0 /(π λ2L ), and superconduc-
tivity is destroyed at the critical field Hc2 ∼ 0 /(π ξ 2 )
at which point the cores of the fluxoids touch.
J. Astrophys. Astr. (September 2017) 38:43
3. Superstars
3.1 Prelude: internal constitution of a neutron star
A few meters below the surface of a neutron star, matter
is so compressed by the tremendous gravitational pres-
sure that atomic nuclei, which are supposedly arranged
on a regular crystal lattice, are fully ionised and thus
coexist with a quantum gas of electrons. With increasing
Only in the first few hundred metres below the sur-
face can the composition be completely determined by
experimentally measured masses of atomic nuclei (Wolf
et al. 2013). In the deeper layers recourse must be made
to theoretical models (Pearson et al. 2011; Kreim et al.
2013; Chamel et al. 2015; Sharma et al. 2015, Utama
et al. (2016), Chamel et al. 2017). At densities of a
few 1011 g cm−3 , neutrons start to ‘drip’ out of nuclei
(see Chamel et al. (2015) for a recent discussion). This
marks the transition to the inner crust, an inhomoge-
neous assembly of neutron-proton clusters immersed in
electrons. According to various calculations, the crust
dissolves into a uniform mixture of neutrons, protons
and electrons when the density reaches about half the
density ∼2.7 × 1014 g cm−3 found inside heavy atomic
nuclei (see Chamel & Haensel (2008) for a review
about neutron-star crusts). Near the crust-core interface,
nuclear clusters with very unusual shapes such as elon-
gated rods or slabs may exist (see section 3.3 of Chamel
& Haensel (2008), see also Watanabe & Maruyama
(2012)). These so-called ‘nuclear pastas’ could account
for half of the crustal mass, and play a crucial role for
the dynamical evolution of the star and its cooling (Pons
the innermost part of neutron-star cores remains highly
uncertain: apart from nucleons and leptons, it may also
contain hyperons, meson condensates, and deconfined
quarks (Haensel et al. (2007); see also Sedrakian (2010),
Chatterjee & Vidaña (2016)).
3.2 Superfluid and superconducting phase transitions
in dense matter
Only one year after the publication of the BCS theory
of superconductivity, Bogoliubov (1958) was the first
to consider the possibility of superfluid nuclear matter.
Migdal (1959) speculated that the interior of a neutron
star might contain a neutron superfluid, and its critical
temperature was estimated by Ginzburg & Kirzhnits
(1964) using the BCS theory. Proton superconductiv-
ity in neutron stars was studied by Wolf (1966). The
J. Astrophys. Astr. (September 2017) 38:43
possibility of anisotropic neutron superfluidity was
explored by Hoffberg et al. (1970), and independently
by Tamagaki (1970).
Neutrons and protons are fermions, and due to the
Pauli exclusion principle, they generally tend to avoid
themselves. This individualistic behaviour, together
with the strong repulsive nucleon–nucleon interaction at
short distance, provide the necessary pressure to coun-
terbalance the huge gravitational pull in a neutron star,
thereby preventing it from collapsing. However at low
enough temperatures, nucleons may form pairs (Broglia
& Zelevinsky 2013) similarly as electrons in ordi-
nary superconductors as described by the BCS theory1 .
These bosonic pairs can therefore condense, analo-
gous to superfluid helium-3. While helium-3 becomes
a superfluid only below 1 mK, nuclear superfluidity
could be sustainable even at a temperature of several
billions degrees in a neutron star due to the enormous
pressure involved. The nuclear pairing phenomenon is
also supported by the properties of atomic nuclei (Dean
& Hjorth-Jensen 2003).
Because the nuclear interactions are spin-dependent
and include non-central tensor components (angular
momentum-dependent), different kinds of nucleon–
nucleon pairs could form at low enough temperatures.
The most attractive pairing channels2 are 1 S0 at low
densities and the coupled 3 PF2 channel at higher densi-
ties (Gezerlis et al. 2014). In principle, different types
of pairs may coexist. However, one or the other are
usually found to be energetically favored (Lombardo
& Schulze 2001). Let us mention that nucleons may
also form quartets such as α-particles, which can them-
selves condense at low enough temperatures (Schuck
2014). Most microscopic calculations have been car-
ried out in pure neutron matter using diagrammatic,
variational, and more recently, Monte Carlo methods
(see Gezerlis et al. 2014; Lombardo & Schulze 2001
for a review). At concentrations below ∼0.16 fm−3 , as
encountered in the inner crust and in the outer core of
a neutron star, neutrons are expected to become super-
fluid by forming 1 S0 pairs, with critical temperatures of
about 1010 K at most (Gezerlis et al. 2014; Cao et al.
1 The high temperatures ∼107 K prevailing in neutron star interiors
prevent the formation of electron pairs recalling that the highest
critical temperatures of terrestrial superconductors do not exceed
∼200 K. In particular, iron expected to be present in the outermost
layers of a neutron star was found to be superconducting in 2001,
but with a critical temperature Tc  2 K (Shimizu et al. 2001). See
also Ginzburg (1969).
2 A given channel is denoted by 2S+1 L , where J is the total angular
J
momentum, L is the orbital angular momentum, and S the spin of
nucleon pair.
Page 5 of 14 43
2006; Maurizio et al. 2014; Ding et al. 2016). At neutron
concentrations above ∼0.16 fm−3 , pairing in the cou-
pled 3 PF2 channel becomes favored but the maximum
critical temperature remains very uncertain, predictions
ranging from ∼108 K to ∼109 K (Maurizio et al. 2014;
Ding et al. 2016; Baldo et al. 1998; Dong et al. 2013).
This lack of knowledge of neutron superfluid properties
mainly stems from the highly nonlinear character of the
pairing phenomenon, as well as from the fact that the
nuclear interactions are not known from first principles
(see Machleidt (2017) for a recent review).
Another complication arises from the fact that neu-
tron stars are not only made of neutrons. The presence of
nuclear clusters in the crust of a neutron star may change
substantially the neutron superfluid properties. Unfor-
tunately, microscopic calculations of inhomogeneous
crustal matter employing realistic nuclear interactions
are not feasible. State-of-the-art calculations are based
on the nuclear energy density functional theory, which
allows for a consistent and unified description of atomic
nuclei, infinite homogeneous nuclear matter and neu-
tron stars (see Chamel et al. (2013) and references
therein). The main limitation of this approach is that
the exact form of the energy density functional is not
known. In practice, phenomenological functionals fit-
ted to selected nuclear data must therefore be employed.
The superfluid in neutron-star crusts, which bears simi-
larities with terrestrial multiband superconductors, was
first studied within the band theory of solids in Chamel
et al. (2010). However, this approach is computationally
very expensive, and has been so far limited to the deep-
est layers of the crust. For this reason, most calculations
of neutron superfluidity in neutron-star crusts (Mar-
gueron & Sandulescu 2012) have been performed using
an approximation introduced by Wigner & Seitz (1933)
in the context of electrons in metals: the Wigner–Seitz or
Voronoi cell of the lattice (a truncated octahedron in case
of a body-centred cubic lattice) is replaced by a sphere
of equal volume. However, this approximation can only
be reliably applied in the shallowest region of the crust
due to the appearance of spurious shell effects (Chamel
et al. 2007). Such calculations have shown that the phase
diagram of the neutron superfluid in the crust is more
complicated than that in pure neutron matter; in particu-
lar, the formation of neutron pairs can be enhanced with
increasing temperature (Margueron & Khan 2012; Pas-
tore et al. 2013; Pastore 2015). Microscopic calculations
in pure neutron matter at densities above the crust-core
boundary are not directly applicable to neutron stars due
to the presence of protons, leptons, and possibly other
particles in neutron-star cores. Few microscopic calcu-
lations have been performed so far in beta-stable matter
43 Page 6 of 14
(Zhou et al. 2004). Because the proton concentration
in the outer core of a neutron star is very low, pro-
tons are expected to become superconducting in the 1 S0
channel. However, the corresponding critical tempera-
tures are very poorly known due to the strong influence
of the surrounding neutrons (Baldo & Schulze 2007).
Neutron–proton pairing could also in principle occur,
but is usually disfavored by the very low proton con-
tent of neutron stars (Stein et al. 2014). Other more
speculative possibilities include hyperon–hyperon and
hyperon-nucleon pairing (Chatterjee & Vidaña (2016)
and references therein). The core of a neutron star might
also contain quarks in various color superconducting
phases (Alford et al. 2008).
According to cooling simulations, the temperature in
a neutron star is predicted to drop below the estimated
critical temperatures of nuclear superfluid phases after
∼10–102 years. The interior of a neutron star is thus
thought to contain at least three different kinds of super-
fluids and superconductors (Page et al. 2014): (i) an
isotropic neutron superfluid (with 1 S0 pairing) perme-
ating the inner region of the crust and the outer core, (ii)
an anisotropic neutron superfluid (with 3 PF2 pairing) in
the outer core, and (iii) an isotropic proton supercon-
ductor (with 1 S0 pairing) in the outer core. The neutron
superfluids in the crust and in the outer core are not
expected to be separated by a normal region.
3.3 Role of a high magnetic field
Most neutron stars that have been discovered so far are
radio pulsars with typical surface magnetic fields of
order 1012 G (as compared to ∼10−1 G for the Earth’s
magnetic field), but various other kinds of neutron stars
have been revealed with the development of the X-ray
and gamma-ray astronomy (Harding 2013). In partic-
ular, a small class of very highly magnetised neutron
stars thus dubbed magnetars by Thompson & Duncan
(1992) (see Woods & Thompson (2006) for a review)
have been identified in the form of soft-gamma ray
repeaters (SGRs) and anomalous X-ray pulsars (AXPs).
Tremendous magnetic fields up to about 2×1015 G have
been measured at the surface of these stars from both
spin-down and spectroscopic studies (Olausen & Kaspi
2014; Tiengo et al. 2013; An et al. 2014), and vari-
ous observations suggest the existence of even higher
internal fields (Stella et al. 2005; Kaminker et al. 2007;
Watts & Strohmayer 2007; Samuelsson & Andersson
2007; Vietri et al. 2007; Rea et al. 2010; Makishima
et al. 2014). Although only 23 such stars are currently
known (Olausen & Kaspi 2014), recent observations
J. Astrophys. Astr. (September 2017) 38:43
indicate that ordinary pulsars can also be endowed with
very high magnetic fields of order 1014 G (Ng & Kaspi
2011). According to numerical simulations, neutron
stars may potentially be endowed with internal magnetic
fields as high as 1018 G (see Pili et al. 2014; Chatterjee
et al. 2015 and references therein).
The presence of a high magnetic field in the interior of
a neutron star may have a large impact on the superfluid
and superconducting phase transitions. Proton super-
conductivity is predicted to disappear at a critical field
of order 1016 –1017 G (Baym et al. 1969a). Because
spins tend to be aligned in a magnetic field, the forma-
tion of neutron pairs in the 1 S0 channel is disfavored in
a highly magnetised environment, as briefly mentioned
by Kirzhnits (1970). It has been recently shown that
1 S pairing in pure neutron matter is destroyed if the
0
magnetic field strength exceeds ∼1017 G (Stein et al.
2016). Moreover, the magnetic field may also shift the
onset of the neutron-drip transition in dense matter to
higher or lower densities due to Landau quantisation
of electron motion, thus changing the spatial extent of
the superfluid region in magnetar crusts (Chamel et al.
2015; Fantina et al. 2016; Basilico et al. 2015; Chamel
et al. 2016).
3.4 Dynamics of superfluid and superconducting
neutron stars
The minimal model of superfluid neutron stars consists
of at least two distinct interpenetrating dynamical com-
ponents (Baym et al. 1969): (i) a plasma of electrically
charged particles (electrons, nuclei in the crust and pro-
tons in the core) that are essentially locked together by
the interior magnetic field, and (ii) a neutron superfluid.
Whether protons in the core are superconducting or not,
they co-move with the other electrically charged parti-
cles (Sauls 1989).
The traditional heuristic approach to superfluid hydro-
dynamics blurring the distinction between velocity and
momentum makes it difficult to adapt and extend Lan-
dau’s original two-fluid model to the relativistic context,
as required for a realistic description of neutron stars
(Carter & Khalatnikov 1994). In particular, in super-
fluid mixtures such as helium-3 and helium-4 (Andreev
& Bashkin 1976), or neutrons and protons in the core of
neutron stars (Sedrakyan & Shakhabasyan 1980; Var-
danyan & Sedrakyan 1981), the different superfluids
are generally mutually coupled by entrainment effects
whereby the true velocity v X and the momentum pX of
a fluid X are not aligned:
J. Astrophys. Astr. (September 2017) 38:43

pX = KXYvY , (10)
Y fluid systems such as the conservation of generalised
where KXY is a symmetric matrix determined by the
interactions between the constituent particles. In the
two-fluid model, entrainment can be equivalently for-
mulated in terms of ‘effective masses’. Considering the
neutron–proton mixture in the core of neutron stars,
the neutron momentum can thus be expressed as pn =
m n vn in the proton rest frame (vv p = 0), with m n = Knn .
Alternatively, a different kind of effective mass can
be introduced, namely m n = Knn − Knp K pn /K pp ,
such that pn = m n vn in the proton momentum rest
frame (pp p = 0). These effective masses should not be
confused with those introduced in microscopic many-
body theories (Chamel & Haensel 2006). Because of
the strong interactions between neutrons and protons,
entrainment effects in neutron-star cores cannot be
ignored (see Chamel & Haensel 2006; Gusakov &
Haensel 2005; Chamel 2008; Kheto & Bandyopadhyay
2014; Sourie et al. 2016 for recent estimates). In the
neutron-rich core of neutron stars, we typically have
m n ∼ m n ∼ m n , and m p ∼ m p ∼ (0.5−1)m p ,
where m n and m p denote the ‘bare’ neutron and pro-
ton masses respectively. As shown by Carter (1975), at
the global scale of the star, general relativity induces
additional couplings between the fluids due to Lense–
Thirring effects, which tend to counteract entrainment.
As recently found in Sourie et al. (2017), frame-
dragging effects can be as important as entrainment.
An elegant variational formalism to derive the hydro-
dynamic equations of any relativistic (super)fluid mix-
tures was developed by Carter and collaborators (Carter
1989, 2001; Gourgoulhon 2006; Andersson & Comer
2007). This formalism relies on an action principle
in which the basic variables are the number densi-
ties and currents of the different fluids. The equations
of motion can be derived by considering variations
of the fluid particle trajectories. Dissipative processes
(e.g. viscosity in non-superfluid constituents, super-
fluid vortex drag, ordinary resistivity between non-
superfluid constituents, nuclear reactions) can be treated
within the same framework. The convective formalism
developed by Carter was later adapted to the com-
paratively more intricate Newtonian theory within a
4-dimensionally covariant framework (see Carter &
Chamel 2004, 2005a, b; see also Prix 2004, 2005;
Andersson & Comer 2006 and references therein for
a review of other approaches using a 3+1 spacetime
decomposition). This fully covariant approach not only
facilitates the comparison with the relativistic theory
(Carter et al. 2006; Chamel 2008), but more importantly
Page 7 of 14 43
lead to the discovery of new conservation laws in super-
helicy currents.
As pointed out by Ginzburg & Kirzhnits (1964), the
interior of a rotating neutron star is expected to be
threaded by a very large number of neutron superfluid
vortices (for a discussion of the vortex structure in 1 S0
and 3 PF2 neutron superfluids, see Sauls 1989). Intro-
ducing the spin period P in units of 10 ms, P10 ≡
P/(10 ms), the surface density of vortices (5) is of the
order
−1
n υ ∼ 6 × 105 P10 cm−2 . (11)
The average intervortex spacing (3) of order

dυ ∼ n −1/2
υ ∼ 10 −3
P10 cm , (12)
is much larger than the size of the vortex core (Yu &
Bulgac 2003). Neutron superfluid vortices can pin to
nuclear inhomogeneities in the crust. However, the pin-
ning strength remains uncertain (see Wlazłowski et al.
2016 and references therein; see also section 8.3.5 of
Chamel & Haensel (2008)). Protons in the core of a
neutron star are expected to become superconducting at
low enough temperatures. Contrary to superfluid neu-
trons, superconducting protons do not form vortices. As
shown by Baym et al. (1969a, b), the expulsion of the
magnetic flux accompanying the transition takes place
on a very long time scale ∼106 years due to the very
high electrical conductivity of the dense stellar matter.
The superconducting transition thus occurs at constant
magnetic flux. The proton superconductor is usually
thought to be of type II (Baym et al. 1969a) (see also
Charbonneau & Zhitnitsky 2007; Alford et al. 2008 and
references therein), in which case, the magnetic flux
penetrates the neutron star core by forming fluxoids,
with a surface density (9) of order
n ∼ 5 × 1018 B12 cm−2 , (13)
where the magnetic field strength B is expressed as
B12 ≡ B/(1012 G). This surface density corresponds
to a spacing (8) of order

−1/2 −1
d ∼n ∼ 5 × 10−10 B12 cm . (14)
Since the magnetic flux is frozen in the stellar core, flux-
oids can form even if the magnetic field is lower than the
critical field Hc1 ∼ 1015 G (Baym et al. 1969a). Proton
superconductivity is destroyed at the higher critical field
Hc2 ∼ 1016 G (Baym et al. 1969a). Due to entrainment
effects, neutron superfluid vortices carry a magnetic flux
as well, given by (Sedrakyan & Shakhabasyan 1980;
Alpar et al. 1984)
43 Page 8 of 14
 
mp
= 0 −1 , (15)
mp
where 0 = hc/(2e). Electrons scattering off the
magnetic field of the vortex lines leads to a strong
frictional coupling between the core neutron super-
fluid and the electrically charged particles (Alpar et al.
1984). Neutron superfluid vortices could also interact
with proton fluxoids (Sauls 1989; Muslimov & Tsy-
gan 1985; Mendell 1991; Chau et al. 1992), and this
may have important implications for the evolution of
the star (Srinivasan 1997; Sauls 1989; Srinivasan et al.
1990; Ruderman 1995; Ruderman et al. 1998; Bhat-
tacharya 2002). For typical neutron star parameters
(P = 10 ms, B = 1012 G, radius R = 10 km), the
numbers of neutron superfluid vortices and proton flux-
oids are of the order n υ π R 2 ∼ 1018 and n π R 2 ∼
1030 , respectively. Such large numbers justify a smooth-
averaged hydrodynamical description of neutron stars.
However, this averaging still requires the understanding
of the underlying vortex dynamics (Graber et al. 2017).
A more elaborate treatment accounting for the macro-
scopic anisotropy induced by the underlying presence
of vortices and/or flux tubes was developed by Carter
based on a Kalb-Ramond type formulation (Carter
2000) (see also Gusakov & Dommes (2016) and ref-
erences therein). In recent years, simulations of large
collections (∼102 –104 ) of vortices have been carried
out, thus providing some insight on collective behav-
iors, such as vortex avalanches (Warszawski & Melatos
2013). However, these simulations have been restricted
so far to Bose condensates. The extent to which the
results can be extrapolated to neutron stars remains to be
determined. Such large-scale simulations also require
microscopic parameters determined by the local dynam-
ics of individual vortices (Bulgac et al. 2013).
The variational formulation of multifluid hydrody-
namics was extended for studying the magnetoelasto-
hydrodynamics of neutron star crusts, allowing for a
consistent treatment of the elasticity of the crust, super-
fluidity and the presence of a strong magnetic field, both
within the Newtonian theory (Carter et al. 2006; Carter
& Chachoua 2006) and in the fully relativistic con-
text (Carter & Samuelsson 2006). In particular, these
formulations can account for the entrainment of the neu-
tron superfluid by the crustal lattice (Carter et al. 2006),
a non-dissipative effect arising from Bragg scattering of
unbound neutrons first studied in Carter et al. (2005),
Chamel (2005, 2006) using the band theory of solids.
More recent systematic calculations based on a more
realistic description of the crust have confirmed that
these entrainment effects can be very strong (Chamel
J. Astrophys. Astr. (September 2017) 38:43
2012). These results are at variance with those obtained
from hydrodynamical studies (Epstein 1988; Sedrakian
1996; Magierski & Bulgac 2004a, b; Magierski 2004;
Martin & Urban 2016). However, as discussed in Martin
& Urban (2016), these approaches are only valid if the
neutron superfluid coherence length is much smaller
than the typical size of the spatial inhomogeneities, a
condition that is usually not fulfilled in most region
of the inner crust. The neglect of neutron pairing in
the quantum calculations of Chamel (2012) has been
recently questioned (Gezerlis et al. 2014; Martin &
Urban 2016). Although detailed numerical calculations
are still lacking, the analytical study of Carter et al.
(2005) suggested that neutron pairing is unlikely to have
a large impact on the entrainment coupling.
4. Observational manifestations
4.1 Pulsar frequency glitches
Pulsars are neutron stars spinning very rapidly with
extremely stable periods P ranging from milliseconds
to seconds, with delays Ṗ ≡ dP/dt that in some cases
do not do not exceed 10−21 , as compared to 10−18 for
the most accurate atomic clocks (Hinkley et al. 2013).
Nevertheless, irregularities have been detected in long-
term pulsar timing observations (Lyne et al. 1995). In
particular, some pulsars have been found to suddenly
spin up. These ‘glitches’ in their rotational frequency
, ranging from / ∼ 10−9 to ∼10−5 , are gener-
ally followed by a long relaxation lasting from days
to years, and sometimes accompanied by an abrupt
change of the spin-down rate from | / ˙ |
˙ ∼ 10−6 up
−2
to ∼10 . At the time of this writing, 482 glitches
have been detected in 168 pulsars (Espinoza et al.
2011). Since these phenomena have not been observed
in any other celestial bodies, they must reflect specific
properties of neutron stars (for a recent review, see,
Haskell & Melatos (2015)). In particular, giant pul-
sar frequency glitches / ∼ 10−6 –10−5 as detected
in the emblematic Vela pulsar are usually attributed to
sudden transfers of angular momentum from a more
rapidly rotating superfluid component to the rest of the
star whose rotation frequency is directly observed (for
a short historical review of theoretical developments,
see Chamel (2015) and references therein). The role
of superfluidity is corroborated by the very long relax-
ation times (Baym et al. 1969a) and by experiments
with superfluid helium (Tsakadze & Tsakadze 1980).
The standard scenario of giant pulsar glitches is the fol-
lowing. The inner crust of a neutron star is permeated
J. Astrophys. Astr. (September 2017) 38:43
by a neutron superfluid that is weakly coupled to the
electrically charged particles by mutual friction forces
(in a seminal work, Alpar et al. (1984) argued that
the core neutron superfluid is strongly coupled to the
core, and therefore does not participate to the glitch).
The superfluid thus follows the spin-down of the star
via the motion of vortices away from the rotation axis
unless vortices are pinned to the crust (Anderson &
Itoh 1975). In such a case, a lag between the super-
fluid and the rest of the star will build up, inducing a
Magnus force acting on the vortices. At some point, the
vortices will suddenly unpin, the superfluid will spin
down and, by the conservation of angular momentum
the crust will spin up. During subsequent relaxation,
vortices progressively repin until the next glitch (Pines
& Alpar 1985). This scenario is supported by the anal-
ysis of the glitch data, suggesting that the superfluid
represents only a few per cent of the angular momen-
tum reservoir of the star (Alpar et al. 1993; Datta &
Alpar 1993; Link et al. 1999). On the other hand, this
interpretation has been recently challenged by the 2007
glitch detected in PSR J1119−6127, and by the 2010
glitch in PSR B2334+61 (Yuan et al. 2010; Alpar 2011;
Akbal et al. 2015). More importantly, it has also been
shown that the neutron superfluid in the crust of a neu-
tron star does not contain enough angular momentum
to explain giant glitches due to the previously ignored
effects of Bragg scattering (Chamel & Carter 2006;
Andersson et al. 2012; Chamel 2013; Delsate et al.
2016). This suggests that the core superfluid plays a
more important role than previously thought (Ho et al.
2015; Pizzochero et al. 2017). In particular, the core
superfluid could be decoupled from the rest of the star
due to the pinning of neutron vortices to proton flux-
oids (Ruderman et al. 1998; Gügercinoğlu & Alpar
2014). So far, most global numerical simulations of pul-
sar glitches have been performed within the Newtonian
theory (Larson & Link 2002; Peralta et al. 2006; Sidery
et al. 2010; Haskell et al. 2012). However, a recent study
shows that general relativity could significantly affect
the dynamical evolution of neutron stars (Sourie et al.
2017).
4.2 Thermal relaxation of transiently accreting
neutron stars during quiescence
In a low-mass X-ray binary, a neutron star accretes
matter from a companion star during several years
or decades, driving the neutron-star crust out of its
thermal equilibrium with the core. After the accre-
tion stops, the heated crust relaxes towards equilibrium
(see section 12.7 of Chamel & Haensel (2008), see
Page 9 of 14 43
also Page & Reddy (2012)). The thermal relaxation
has been already monitored in a few systems (see
Waterhouse et al. (2016) and references therein). The
thermal relaxation time depends on the properties of
the crust, especially the heat capacity. In turn, the onset
of neutron superfluidity leads to a strong reduction
of the heat capacity at temperatures T  Tc thus
delaying the thermal relaxation of the crust (Fortin
et al. 2010). If neutrons were not superfluid, they
could store so much heat that the thermal relaxation
would last longer than what is observed (Shternin
et al. 2007; Brown & Cumming 2009). On the other
hand, the thermal relaxation of these systems is not
completely understood. For instance, additional heat
sources of unknown origin are needed in order to
reproduce the observations (Waterhouse et al. 2016;
Brown & Cumming 2009; Degenaar et al. 2013, 2014;
Turlione et al. 2015; Degenaar et al. 2015; Merritt
et al. 2016). These discrepancies may also originate
from a lack of understanding of superfluid proper-
ties (Turlione et al. 2015). In particular, the low-energy
collective excitations of the neutron superfluid were
found to be strongly mixed with the vibrations of
the crystal lattice, and this can change substantially
the thermal properties of the crust (Chamel et al.
2013, 2016).
4.3 Rapid cooling of Cassiopeia A
Cassiopeia A is the remnant of a star that exploded
330 years ago at a distance of about 11000 light
years from us. It owes its name to its location in
the constellation Cassiopeia. The neutron star is not
only the youngest known, thermally emitting, isolated
neutron star in our Galaxy, but it is also the first iso-
lated neutron star for which cooling has been directly
observed. Ten-year monitoring of this object seems to
indicate that its temperature has decreased by a few
per cent since its discovery in 1999 (Heinke & Ho
2010) (see also the analysis of Elshamouty et al. (2013),
Posselt et al. (2013) suggesting that the temperature
decline is not statistically significant). If confirmed,
this cooling rate would be substantially faster than
that expected from nonsuperfluid neutron-star cooling
theories. It is thought that the onset of neutron super-
fluidity opens a new channel for neutrino emission
from the continuous breaking and formation of neu-
tron pairs. This process, which is most effective for
temperatures slightly below the critical temperature of
the superfluid transition, enhances the cooling of the
star during several decades. As a consequence, obser-
vations of Cassiopeia A put stringent constraints on the
43 Page 10 of 14
critical temperatures of the neutron superfluid and pro-
ton superconductor in neutron-star cores (Page et al.
2011; Shternin et al. 2011; Ho et al. 2015). However,
this interpretation has been questioned and alternative
scenarios have been proposed (Blaschke et al. 2013;
Negreiros et al. 2013; Sedrakian 2013; Noda et al. 2013;
Bonanno et al. 2014; Ouyed et al. 2015; Sedrakian
2016; Taranto et al. 2016), most of which still requir-
ing superfluidity and/or superconductivity in neutron
stars.
4.4 Pulsar timing noise and rotational evolution
Apart from pulsar frequency glitches, superfluidity and
superconductivity may leave their imprint on other
timing irregularities. In particular, pulsar timing noise
(Lyne et al. 1995) could be the manifestation of super-
fluid turbulence although other mechanisms are likely
to play a role (see Melatos & Link (2014) and ref-
erences therein). Interpreting the long-period (∼100–
1000 days) oscillations in the timing residuals of some
pulsars such as PSR B1828−11 (Kerr et al. 2016) as
evidence of free precession, it has been argued that
either the neutron superfluid does not coexist with the
proton superconductor in the core of a neutron star,
or the proton superconductor is type I so as to avoid
pinning of neutron superfluid vortices to proton flux-
oids (Link 2003, 2007). However, this conclusion seems
premature in view of the complexity of the neutron-
star dynamics (Alpar 2005; Glampedakis et al. 2009).
Alternatively, these oscillations might be related to the
propagation of Tkachenko waves in the vortex lattice
(see Haskell 2011 and references therein). The presence
of superfluids and superconductors in the interior of a
neutron star may also be revealed from the long-term
rotational evolution of pulsars by measuring the brak-
ing index n = / ¨ ˙ 2 . Deviations from the canonical
value n = 3 as predicted by a rotating magnetic dipole
model in vacuum can be explained by the decoupling
of the neutron superfluid in the core of a neutron star
(due to pinning to proton fluxoids for instance) (Alpar &
Baykal 2006; Ho & Andersson 2012). However, a sim-
ilar rotational evolution could be mimicked by other
mechanisms without invoking superfluidity (see Pétri
(2016) for a recent review).
4.5 Quasi-periodic oscillations in soft gamma-ray
repeaters
Quasi-periodic oscillations (QPOs) in the hard X-ray
emission were detected in the tails of giant flares from
SGR 1806-20, SGR 1900+14 and SGR 0526-66, with
J. Astrophys. Astr. (September 2017) 38:43
frequencies ranging from 18 Hz to 1800 Hz (see Tur-
olla et al. (2015) for a recent review). As anticipated by
Duncan (1998), these QPOs are thought to be the sig-
natures of global magneto-elastic seismic vibrations of
the star. If this interpretation is confirmed, the analysis
of these QPOs could thus provide valuable information
on the interior of a neutron star. In particular, the iden-
tification of the modes could potentially shed light on
the existence of superfluid and superconducting phases
(Gabler et al. 2013).
5. Conclusion
The existence of superfluid and superconducting phases
in the dense matter constituting the interior of neutron
stars has been corroborated both by theoretical develop-
ments and by astrophysical observations. In particular,
neutron stars are expected to contain a 1 S0 neutron
superfluid permeating the inner region of the crust and
the outer core, a 3 PF2 neutron superfluid in the outer
core, and a 1 S0 proton superconductor in the outer
core. Still, many aspects of these phenomena need to
be better understood. Due to the highly nonlinear char-
acter of the pairing mechanism giving rise to nuclear
superfluidity and superconductivity, the associated crit-
ical temperatures remain very uncertain, especially for
the 3 PF2 channel. The dynamics of these phase transi-
tions as the star cools down, and the possible formation
of topological defects need to be explored. Although
the formalism for describing the relativistic smooth-
averaged magnetoelastohydrodynamics of superfluid
and superconducting systems already exists, modelling
the global evolution of neutron stars in full general rel-
ativity still remains very challenging. To a large extent,
the difficulty lies in the many different scales involved,
from the kilometre size of the star down to the size of
individual neutron vortices and proton fluxoids at the
scale of tens or hundred fermis.
Studies of neutron-star dynamics using the Newto-
nian theory provide valuable qualitative insight, and
should thus be pursued.
The presence of other particles such as hyperons or
deconfined quarks in the inner core of neutron stars adds
to the complexity. The occurrence of exotic superfluid
and superconducting phases remains highly speculative
due to the lack of knowledge of dense matter. On the
other hand, astrophysical observations offer a unique
opportunity to probe the phase diagram of matter under
extreme conditions that are inaccessible in terrestrial
laboratories.
J. Astrophys. Astr. (September 2017) 38:43
Acknowledgements
This work has been supported by the Fonds de la
Recherche Scientifique – FNRS (Belgium) under grant
n◦ CDR J.0187.16, and by the European Cooperation in
Science and Technology (COST) action MP1304 New-
CompStar.
References
Abo-Shaeer, J. R., Raman, C., Vogels, J. M., Ketterle, W.
2001, Science, 292, 476.
Abrikosov, A. A. 1957, Sov. Phys. JETP, 5, 1174.
Akbal O., Gügercinoğlu, E., Şaşmaz Muş, S., Alpar, M. A.
2015, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 449, 933.
Alford, M. G., Schmitt, A., Rajagopal, K., Schäfer, T. 2008,
Rev. Mod. Phys., 80, 1455.
Alpar, M. A. 2005, in: The Electromagnetic Spectrum of Neu-
tron Stars, edited by A. Baykal, S. K. Yerli, S. C. Inam & S.
Grebenev, NATO Science Series II, Mathematics, Physics
and Chemistry, 210, Springer, Dordrecht, p. 33.
Alpar, M. A. 2011, AIP Conf. Proc., 1379, 166.
Alpar, M. A., Baykal, A. 2006, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.,
372, 489.
Alpar, M. A., Langer, S. A., Sauls, J. A. 1984, Astrophys. J.,
282, 533.
Alpar, M. A., Chau, H. F., Cheng, K. S., Pines, D. 1993,
Astrophys. J., 409, 345.
An, Hongjun et al. 2014, Astrophys. J., 790, 60.
Anderson, P. W., Itoh, N. 1975, Nature, 256, 25.
Anderson, M. H., Ensher, J. R., Matthews, M. R., Wieman,
C. E., Cornell, E. A. 1995, Science, 269, 198.
Andersson, N., Comer, G. L. 2006, Classical Quant. Grav.
23, 5505.
Andersson, N., Comer, G. L. 2007, Living Rev. Relativity, 10,
1.
Andersson, N., Glampedakis, K., Ho, W. C. G., Espinoza, C.
M. 2012, Phys. Rev. Lett., 109, 241103.
Andreev, A. F., Bashkin, E. P. 1976, Sov. Phys. JETP, 42,
164.
Baldo, M., Schulze, H.-J. 2007, Phys. Rev. C, 75, 025802.
Baldo, M., Elgarøy, Ø., Engvik, L., Hjorth-Jensen, M.,
Schulze, H.-J. 1998, Phys. Rev. C, 58, 1921.
Balibar, S. 2014, in: History of Artificial Cold, Scientific,
Technological and Cultural Issues, Boston Studies in the
Philosophy and History of Science, 299, Springer, p. 93.
Balibar, S. 2007, J. Low Temp. Phys., 146, 441.
Bardeen, J., Cooper, L. N., Schrieffer, J. R. 1957, Phys. Rev.,
108, 1175.
Basilico, D., Arteaga, D. P., Roca-Maza, X.; Colò, G. 2015,
Phys. Rev. C, 92, 035802.
Baym, G., Pethick, C. J., Pines, D., 1969a, Nature, 224, 673.
Baym, G., Pethick, C. J., Pines, D., Ruderman, M. 1969,
Nature, 224, 872.
Page 11 of 14 43
Baym, G., Pethick, C. J., Pines, D., 1969b, Nature, 224, 674.
Bekarevich, I., Khalatnikov, I. 1961, Sov. Phys. JETP, 13,
643.
Bhattacharya, D. 2002, J. Astrophys. Astr., 23, 67.
Blaschke, D., Grigorian, H., Voskresensky, D. N. 2013, Phys.
Rev. C, 88, 065805.
Bogoliubov, N. N. 1958, Dokl. Ak. Nauk SSSR, 119, 52.
Bonanno, A., Baldo, M., Burgio, G. F., Urpin, V. 2014, Astron.
Astrophys., 561, L5.
Bose, S. N. 1924, Z. Phys., 26, 178.
Brown, E. F., Cumming, A. 2009, Astrophys. J., 698, 1020.
Broglia, R. A., Zelevinsky, V. (eds) 2013, Fifty Years of
Nuclear BCS: Pairing in Finite Systems, World Scientific
Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.
Bulgac, A., Forbes, M. M., Sharma, R. 2013, Phys. Rev. Lett.,
110, 241102.
Cao, L. G., Lombardo, U., Schuck, P. 2006, Phys. Rev. C, 74,
064301.
Carter, B. 1989, in: Relativistic fluid dynamics, Springer-
Verlag, p. 1.
Carter, B. 2000, in: Topological Defects and the Non-
equilibrium Dynamics of Symmetry Breaking Phase Tran-
sitions, edited by Y. M. Bunkov & H. Godfrin, Springer,
New York, p. 267.
Carter, B. 2001, in: Lecture Notes in Physics, 578, edited by
D. Blaschke, N. K. Glendenning & A. Sedrakian, Springer,
p. 54.
Carter, B. 1975, Ann. Phys., 95, 53.
Carter, B., Chachoua, E. 2006, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 15, 1329.
Carter, B., Chamel, N. 2004, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 13, 291.
Carter, B., Chamel, N. 2005a, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 14, 717.
Carter, B., Chamel, N. 2005b, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 14, 749.
Carter, B., Khalatnikov, I. M. 1994, Rev. Math. Phys., 6, 277.
Carter, B., Samuelsson, L. 2006, Classical Quant. Grav., 23,
5367.
Carter, B., Chamel, N., Haensel, P. 2005, Nucl. Phys. A, 748,
675.
Carter, B., Chamel, N., Haensel, P. 2005, Nucl. Phys. A, 759,
441.
Carter, B., Chachoua, E., Chamel, N. 2006, Gen. Rel. Grav.,
38, 83.
Carter, B., Chamel, N., Haensel, P. 2006, Int. J. Mod. Phys.
D, 15, 777.
Chamel, N., Goriely, S., Pearson, J. M. 2013, in: Fifty Years
of Nuclear BCS: Pairing in Finite Systems, edited by R. A.
Broglia & V. Zelevinsky, World Scientific Publishing Co.
Pte. Ltd., pp. 284–296.
Chamel, N., Haensel, P. 2008, Living Rev. Relativity, 11, 10;
http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2008-10.
Chamel, N. 2015, in: Proceedings of The Modern Physics of
Compact Stars 2015, PoS(MPCS2015)013.
Chamel, N. 2005, Nucl. Phys. A, 747, 109.
Chamel, N. 2006, Nucl. Phys. A, 773, 263.
Chamel, N. 2008, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 388, 737.
Chamel, N. 2012, Phys. Rev. C, 85, 035801.
Chamel, N. 2013, Phys. Rev. Lett., 110, 011101.
43 Page 12 of 14
Chamel, N., Carter, B. 2006, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 368,
796.
Chamel, N., Haensel, P. 2006, Phys. Rev. C, 73, 045802.
Chamel, N., Naimi, S., Khan, E., Margueron, J. 2007, Phys.
Rev. C, 75, 055806.
Chamel, N., Goriely, S., Pearson, J. M., Onsi, M. 2010, Phys.
Rev. C, 81, 045804.
Chamel, N., Page, D., Reddy, S. 2013, Phys. Rev. C, 87,
035803.
Chamel, N., Stoyanov, Zh. K., Mihailov, L. M., Mutafchieva,
Y. D., Pavlov, R. L., Velchev, Ch. J. 2015, Phys .Rev. C,
91, 065801.
Chamel, N., Pearson, J. M., Fantina, A. F., Ducoin, C.,
Goriely, S., Pastore, A. 2015, Acta Phys. Pol. B, 46, 349.
Chamel, N., Fantina, A. F., Zdunik, J.L., Haensel, P. 2015,
Phys. Rev. C, 91, 055803.
Chamel, N., Mutafchieva, Y. D., Stoyanov, Zh K., Mihailov,
L. M., Pavlov, R. L. 2016, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., 724,
012034.
Chamel, N., Page, D., Reddy, S. 2016, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser.,
665, 012065.
Chamel, N., Fantina, A. F., Pearson, J. M., Goriely, S. 2017,
EPJ Web of Conferences, 137, 09001.
Charbonneau, J., Zhitnitsky, A. 2007, Phys. Rev. C, 76,
015801.
Chatterjee, D., Vidaña, I. 2016, Eur. Phys. J. A, 52, 29.
Chatterjee, D., Elghozi, T., Novak, J., Oertel, M. 2015, Mon.
Rot. R. Astron. Soc., 447, 3785.
Chau, H. F., Cheng, K. S., Ding, K. Y. I 1992, Astrophys. J.,
399, 213.
Datta, B., Alpar, M. A. 1993, Astron. Astrophys., 275, 210.
Davis, K., Mewes, M.-O., Andrews, M. R., van Druten, N. J.,
Durfee, D. S., Kurn, D. M., Ketterle, W. 1995, Phys. Rev.
Lett., 75, 3969.
Dean, D. J., Hjorth-Jensen, M. 2003, Rev. Mod. Phys., 75,
607.
Deaver, B., Fairbank, W. 1961, Phys. Rev. Lett., 7, 43.
Degenaar, N., Wijnands, R., Brown, E. F., Altamirano, D.,
Cackett, E. M., Fridriksson, J., Homan, J., Heinke, C. O.,
Miller, J. M., Pooley, D., Sivakoff, G. R. 2013, Astrophys.
J., 775, 48.
Degenaar, N., Medin, Z., Cumming, A., Wijnands, R., Wolff,
M. T., Cackett, E. M., Miller, J. M., Jonker, P. G., Homan,
J., Brown, E. F. 2014, Astrophys. J., 791, 47.
Degenaar, N., Wijnands, R., Bahramian, A., Sivakoff, G. R.,
Heinke, C. O., Brown, E. F., Fridriksson, J. K., Homan,
J., Cackett, E. M., Cumming, A., Miller, J. M., Altami-
rano, D., Pooley, D. 2015, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 451,
2071.
Delsate, T., Chamel, N., Gürlebeck, N., Fantina, A. F., Pear-
son, J. M., Ducoin, C. 2016, Phys. Rev. D, 94, 023008.
Deshpande, A. A., Ramachandran, R., Srinivasan, G. 1995,
J. Astrophys. Astr., 16, 69.
Ding, D., Rios, A., Dussan, H., Dickhoff, W. H., Witte, S. J.,
Carbone, A., Polls, A. 2016, Phys. Rev. C, 94, 025802.
Doll, R., Näbauer, M. 1961, Phys. Rev. Lett., 7, 51.
J. Astrophys. Astr. (September 2017) 38:43
Dong, J. M., Lombardo, U., Zuo W. 2013, Phys. Rev. C, 87,
062801(R).
Drozdov, A. P., Eremets, M. I., Troyan, I. A., Ksenofontov,
V., Shylin, S. I. 2015, Nature, 525, 73.
Duncan, R. C. 1998, Astrophys. J., 498, L45.
Einstein, A. 1925, Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1, 3.
Elshamouty, K. G., Heinke, C. O., Sivakoff, G. R., Ho, W. C.
G., Shternin, P. S., Yakovlev, D. G., Patnaude, D. J., David,
L. 2013, Astrophys. J., 777, 22.
Epstein, R. I. 1988, Astrophys. J., 333, 880.
Espinoza, C. M., Lyne, A. G., Stappers, B. W., Kramer, M.
2011, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 414, 1679; http://www.
jb.man.ac.uk/pulsar/glitches.html
Fantina, A. F., Chamel, N., Mutafchieva, Y. D., Stoyanov, Zh.
K., Mihailov, L. M., Pavlov, R. L. 2016, Phys .Rev. C, 93,
015801.
Feynman, R. P. 1955, Prog. Low Temp. Phys., 1, 17.
File, J., Mills, R. G. 1963, Phys. Rev. Lett., 10, 93.
Fortin, M., Grill, F., Margueron, J., Page, D., Sandulescu, N.
2010, Phys. Rev. C, 82, 065804.
Gabler, M., Cerdá-Durán, P., Stergioulas, N., Font, J. A.,
Müller, E. 2013, Phys. Rev. Lett., 111, 211102.
Gezerlis, A., Pethick, C. J., Schwenk, A. 2014, in: Novel
Superfluids, Volume 2, edited by K. H. Bennemann & J. B.
Ketterson, Oxford University Press, Chapter 22.
Ginzburg, V. L., Kirzhnits, D. A. 1964, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.,
47, 2006; Sov. Phys. JETP. 20, 1346 (1965).
Ginzburg, V. L. 1969, J. Stat. Phys., 1, 3.
Glampedakis, K., Andersson, N., Jones, D. I. 2009, Mon. Not.
R. Astron. Soc., 394 ,1908.
Gorter, C. J. 1955, Prog. Low Temp. Phys., 1, 1.
Gourgoulhon, E. 2006, EAS Publications Series, 21, 43.
Graber, V., Andersson, N., Hogg, M. 2017, Int. J. Mod. Phys.
D, 26, 1730015.
Gügercinoğlu, E., Alpar, M. A. 2014, Astrophys. J., 788, L11.
Gusakov, M. E., Dommes, V. A. 2016, Phys. Rev. D, 94,
083006.
Gusakov, M. E., Haensel, P. 2005, Nucl. Phys. A., 761, 333.
Haensel, P., Potekhin, A. Y., Yakovlev, D. G. 2007, Neutron
Stars 1: Equation of State and Structure, Springer, New
York.
Hall, H. E. 1960, Adv. Phys., 9, 89.
Hall, H. E., Vinen, W. F. 1956, Proc. R. Soc. A., 238, 215.
Harding, A. K. 2013, Frontiers of Physics, 8, 679.
Haskell, B. 2011, Phys. Rev. D, 83, 043006.
Haskell, B., Melatos, A. 2015, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 24,
1530008.
Haskell, B., Pizzochero, P. M., Sidery, T. 2012, Mon. Not. R.
Astron. Soc., 420, 658.
Heinke, C. O., Ho, W. C. G. 2010, Astrophys. J., 719, L167.
Hess, G. B., Fairbank, W. M. 1967, Phys. Rev. Lett., 19,
216.
Hinkley, N., Sherman, J. A., Phillips, N. B., Schioppo, M.,
Lemke, N. D., Beloy, K., Pizzocaro, M., Oates, C. W.,
Ludlow, A. D. 2013, Science, 341, 1215.
J. Astrophys. Astr. (September 2017) 38:43
Ho, W. C. G., Andersson, N. 2012, Nature Phys., 8, 787.
Ho, W. C. G., Espinoza, C. M., Antonopoulou, D., Andersson,
N. 2015, Science Adv., 1, e1500578.
Ho, W. C. G., Elshamouty, K. G., Heinke, C. O., Potekhin,
A. Y. 2015, Phys. Rev. C, 91, 015806.
Hoffberg, M., Glassgold, A. E., Richardson, R. W., Ruder-
man, M. 1970, Phys. Rev. Lett., 24, 775.
Horowitz, C. J., Berry, D. K., Briggs, C. M., Caplan, M. E.,
Cumming, A., Schneider, A. S. 2015, Phys. Rev. Lett., 114,
031102.
Kaminker, A. D., Yakovlev, D. G., Potekhin, A. Y., Shibazaki,
N., Shternin, P. S., Gnedin, O. Y. 2007, Astrophys. Space
Sci., 308, 423.
Kapitsa, P. 1938, Nature, 141, 74.
Keesom, W. H., Kok, J. A. 1932, Proc. Roy. Acad. Amsterdam,
35, 743.
Kerr, M., Hobbs, G., Johnston, S., Shannon, R. M. 2016, Mon.
Not. R. Astron. Soc., 455, 1845.
Kheto, A., Bandyopadhyay, D. 2014, Phys. Rev. D, 89,
023007.
Kirzhnits, D. A. 1970, Radiophys. Quantum Electron., 13,
1424.
Kreim, S., Hempel, M., Lunney, D., Schaffner-Bielich, J.
2013, Int. J. Mass Spec., 349-350, 63.
Landau, L. 1941, Phys. Rev., 60, 356.
Larson, M. B., Link, B. 2002, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 333,
613.
Leggett, A. J. 2006, Quantum Liquids: Bose Condensation
and Cooper Pairing in Condensed-Matter Systems, Oxford
University Press.
Link, B. 2003, Phys. Rev. Lett., 91, 101101.
Link, B. 2007, Astrophys. Space Sci., 308, 435.
Link, B., Epstein, R. I., Lattimer, J. M. 1999, Phys. Rev. Lett.,
83, 3362.
Lombardo, U., Schulze, H.-J. 2001 in: Physics of Neutron
Star Interiors, edited by D. Blaschke, N. K. Glendenning
& A. Sedrakian, Springer, p. 30.
London, F. 1938, Nature, 141, 643.
Lyne, A. G., Pritchard, R. S., Shemar, S. L. 1995, J. Astrophys.
Astr., 16, 179.
Machleidt, R. 2017, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E, 26, 1740018.
Magierski, P. 2004, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E, 13, 371.
Magierski, P., Bulgac, A. 2004, Acta Phys. Pol. B, 35,
1203.
Magierski, P., Bulgac, A. 2004, Nucl. Phys. A, 738, 143.
Makishima, K., Enoto, T., Hiraga, J. S., Nakano, T.,
Nakazawa, K., Sakurai, S., Sasano, M., Murakami, H.
2014, Phys. Rev. Lett., 112, 171102.
Margueron, J., Sandulescu, N. 2012, in: Neutron Star Crust,
edited by C. Bertulani & J. Piekarewicz, Nova Science
Publishers, New York, p. 65.
Margueron, J., Khan, E. 2012, Phys. Rev. C, 86, 065801.
Martin, N., Urban, M. 2016, Phys. Rev. C, 94, 065801.
Maurizio, S., Holt, J. W., Finelli, P. 2014, Phys. Rev. C, 90,
044003.
Page 13 of 14 43
Meissner, W., Ochsenfeld, R. 1933, Naturwissenschaften, 21,
787.
Melatos, A., Link, B. 2014, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 437,
21.
Mendell, G. 1991, Astrophys. J., 380, 515.
Merritt, R. L., Cackett, E. M., Brown, E. F., Page, D., Cum-
ming, A., Degenaar, N., Deibel, A., Homan, J., Miller, J.
M., Wijnands, R. 2016, Astrophys. J., 833, 186.
Migdal, A. B. 1959, Nucl. Phys., 13, 655.
Muslimov, A. G., Tsygan, A. I. 1985, Astrophys. Space Sci.,
115, 43.
Negreiros, R., Schramm, S., Weber, F. 2013, Phys. Lett. B,
718, 1176.
Ng, C. Y., Kaspi, V. M. 2011, AIP Conf. Proc., 1379, 60.
Noda, T., Hashimoto, M., Yasutake, N., Maruyama, T., Tat-
sumi, T., Fujimoto, M. 2013, Astrophys. J., 765, 1.
Olausen, S. A., Kaspi, V. M. 2014, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser.,
212, 6.
Onsager, L. 1949, Nuovo Cimento, 6, 249.
Osheroff, D. D., Richardson, R. C., Lee, D. M. 1972, Phys.
Rev. Lett., 28, 885.
Ouyed, R., Leahy, D., Koning, N. 2015, Res. Astron. Astro-
phys., 15, 483.
Page, D., Lattimer, J. M., Prakash, M. 2014, in: Novel Super-
fluids: volume 2, edited by K. H. Bennemann & J. B.
Ketterson, Oxford University Press, p. 505.
Page, D., Reddy, S. 2012, in: Neutron Star Crust, edited by C.
A. Bertulani & J. Piekarewicz, Nova Science Publishers,
New York, p. 281.
Page, D., Prakash, M., Lattimer, J. M., Steiner, A. W. 2011,
Phys. Rev. Lett., 106, 081101.
Pastore, A. 2015, Phys. Rev. C, 91, 015809.
Pastore, A., Margueron, J., Schuck, P., Viñas, X. 2013, Phys.
Rev. C, 88, 034314.
Pearson, J. M., Goriely, S., Chamel, N. 2011, Phys. Rev. C,
83, 065810.
Peralta, C., Melatos, A., Giacobello, M., Ooi, A. 2006, Astro-
phys. J., 651, 1079.
Pétri, J. 2016, J. Plasma Phys., 82, 635820502.
Pili, A. G., Bucciantini, N., Del Zanna L. 2014, Mon. Not. R.
Astron. Soc., 439, 3541.
Pines, D., Alpar, M. A. 1985, Nature, 316, 27.
Pizzochero, P. M., Antonelli, M., Haskell, B., Seveso, S.,
2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0134.
Pons, J. A., Viganò, D., Rea, N. 2013, Nature Physics, 9, 431.
Posselt, B., Pavlov, G. G., Suleimanov, V., Kargaltsev, O.
2013, Astrophys. J., 779, 186.
Potekhin, A. Y., Pons, J. A., Page, D. 2015, Space Sci. Rev.,
191, 239.
Prakash, M., Lattimer, J. M., Pons, J. A., Steiner, A. W.,
Reddy, S. 2001, in: Lecture Notes in Physics, 578, edited by
D. Blaschke, N. K. Glendenning & A. Sedrakian, Springer,
p. 364.
Prix. R. 2004, Phys. Rev. D, 69, 043001.
Prix, R. 2005, Phys. Rev. D, 71, 083006.
43 Page 14 of 14
Rea, N., Esposito, P., Turolla, R., Israel, G. L., Zane, S., Stella,
L., Mereghetti, S., Tiengo, A., Götz, D., Göğüş, E., Kou-
veliotou, C. 2010, Science, 330, 944.
Regal, C. A., Greiner, M., Jin, D. S. 2004, Phys. Rev. Lett.,
92, 040403.
Reppy, J. D., Depatie, D. 1964, Phys. Rev. Lett., 12, 187.
Rjabinin, J. N., Shubnikov, L. W. 1935a, Phys. Zeit. Swo.
Union, 7, 122.
Rjabinin, J. N., Shubnikov, L. W. 1935b, Nature, 135, 581.
Ruderman, M. 1995, J. Astrophys. Astr., 16, 207.
Ruderman, M., Zhu, T., Chen, K. 1998, Astrophys. J., 492,
267.
Samuelsson L., Andersson, N. 2007, Mon. Not. Roy. Astr.
Soc., 374, 256.
Sauls, J. 1989, in: NATO Advanced Science Institutes (ASI)
Series C, edited by H. Ögelman & E. P. J. van den
Heuvel, NATO Advanced Science Institutes, Kluwer Aca-
demic/Plenum Press, New York, vol. 262, p. 457.
Schuck, P. 2014, J. Phys.: Conf. Series, 569, 012012.
Sedrakian, A., Clark, J. W. 2006, in: Pairing in Fermionic
Systems, World Scientific Publishing, p. 135.
Sedrakian, A. 1996, Astrophys. Space Sci., 236, 267.
Sedrakian, A. 2010, Acta Phys. Polon. B: Proc. Suppl., 3,
669.
Sedrakian, A. 2013, Astron. Astrophys., 555, L10.
Sedrakian, A. 2016, Eur. Phys. J. A, 52, 44.
Sedrakyan, D. M., Shakhabasyan, K. M. 1980, Astrofizika,
16, 727.
Sharma, B. K., Centelles, M., Viñas, X., Baldo, M., Burgio,
G. F. 2015, Astron. Astrophys., 584, A103.
Shimizu, K., Kimura, T., Furomoto, S., Takeda, K., Kontani,
K., Onuki, Y., Amaya, K. 2001, Nature, 412, 316.
Shternin, P. S., Yakovlev, D. G., Haensel, P., Potekhin, A. Y.
2007, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 382, L43.
Shternin, P. S., Yakovlev, D. G., Heinke, C. O., Ho, W. C. G.,
Patnaude, D. J. 2011, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 412, L108.
Sidery, T., Passamonti, A., Andersson, N. 2010, Mon. Not. R.
Astron. Soc., 405, 1061.
Sourie, A., Oertel, M., Novak, J. 2016, Phys. Rev. D, 93,
083004.
Sourie, A., Chamel, N., Novak, J., Oertel, M. 2017, Mon. Not.
R. Astron. Soc., 464, 4641.
Srinivasan, G. 1997, in: Stellar Remnants, edited by G.
Meynet & D. Schaerer, Springer-Verlag, p. 97.
Srinivasan, G., Bhattacharya, D., Muslimov, A. G., Tsygan,
A. J. 1990, Current Science, 59, 31.
Stein, M., Sedrakian, A., Huang, Xu-Guang, Clark, J. W.
2014, Phys. Rev. C, 90, 065804.
Stein, M., Sedrakian, A., Huang, Xu-Guang, Clark, J. W.
2016, Phys. Rev. C, 93, 015802.
Stella, L., DallOsso, S., Israel, G. L. 2005, Astrophys. J., 634,
L165.
J. Astrophys. Astr. (September 2017) 38:43
Tamagaki, R. 1970, Prog. Theor. Phys., 44, 905.
Taranto, G., Burgio, G. F., Schulze, H.-J. 2016, Mon. Not. R.
Astron. Soc., 456, 1451.
Thompson, C., Duncan, R. C. 1992, Astrophys. J., 392,
L9.
Tiengo, A. et al. 2013, Nature, 500, 312.
Tisza, L. 1938, Nature, 141, 913.
Tkachenko, V. K. 1966, Sov. Phys. JETP, 22, 1282.
Tsakadze, J. S., Tsakadze, S. J. 1980, J. Low Temp. Phys., 39,
649.
Turlione, A., Aguilera, D. N., Pons, J. A. 2015, Astron. Astro-
phys., 577, A5.
Turolla, R., Zane, S., Watts, A. L. 2015, Rep. Prog. Phys., 78,
116901.
Utama, R., Piekarewicz, J., Prosper, H. B. 2016, Phys. Rev.
C, 93, 014311.
van Delft, D., Kes, P. 2010, Phys. Today, 63, 9, 38
Vardanyan, G. A., Sedrakyan, D. M. 1981, Sov. Phys. JETP,
54, 919.
Vietri, M., Stella, L., Israel, G. L. 2007, Astrophys. J., 661,
1089.
Warszawski, L., Melatos, A. 2013, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron.
Soc., 428, 1911.
Watanabe, G., Maruyama, T. 2012, in: Neutron Star Crust,
edited by C. Bertulani & J. Piekarewicz, Nova Science
Publishers, p. 23.
Waterhouse, A. C., Degenaar, N., Wijnands, R., Brown, E.
F., Miller, J. M., Altamirano, D., Linares, M. 2016, Mon.
Not. R. Astron. Soc., 456, 4001.
Watts, A. L., Strohmayer, T. E. 2007, Adv. Space Res., 40,
1446.
Wigner, E. P., Seitz, F. 1933, Phys. Rev., 43, 804.
Wlazłowski, G., Sekizawa, K., Magierski, P., Bulgac,
A., McNeil Forbes, M. 2016, Phys. Rev. Lett., 117,
232701.
Wolf, R. A. 1966, Astrophys. J., 145, 834.
Wolf, R. N. et al. 2013, Phys. Rev. Lett., 110, 041101.
Woods, P. M., Thompson, C. 2006, in: Compact Stel-
lar X-ray Sources, edited by W. H. G. Lewin & M.
van der Klis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
p. 547.
Yarmchuk, E. J., Gordon, M. J. V., Packard, R. E. 1979, Phys.
Rev. Lett., 43, 214.
Yu, Y., Bulgac, A. 2003, Phys. Rev. Lett., 90, 161101.
Yuan, J. P., Manchester, R. N., Wang, N., Zhou, X.,
Liu, Z. Y., Gao, Z. F. 2010, Astrophys. J., 719,
L111.
Zhou, X-R, Schulze, H.-J., Zhao, E-G, Pan, F., Draayer, J. P.
2004, Phys. Rev. C, 70, 048802.
Zwierlein, M. W., Abo-Shaeer, J. R., Schirotzek, A.,
Schunck, C. H., Ketterle, W. 2005, Nature, 435,
1047.